About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
MSNBCW 33
CNNW 17
CSPAN 15
FBC 9
CNBC 7
CSPAN2 3
KNTV (NBC) 2
KPIX (CBS) 2
KGO (ABC) 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
LANGUAGE
English 108
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 108 (some duplicates have been removed)
will also hear from president obama, who signed the deficit reduction measure into law, part of the deal to raise the debt ceiling. first, senate majority leader harry reid and republican majority leader mitch mcconnell will talk on the senate floor about the january fiscal deadline. >> since our country voted to return president obama to the white house, i have spoken often about compromise. i remain optimistic that, when it comes to our economy, when it comes to protecting middle-class families from a whopping tax hike, republicans and democrats will be able to find common ground. president dwight eisenhower, a republican, once said, "people talk about the middle of the road as though it were unacceptable. there have to be compromises. the middle of the road is all usable space." so said white house and higher. -- dwight eisenhower. too often, we face off, not realizing that the solution rests somewhere in the middle. i remind everyone of one fact. this congress is one vote away from avoiding a fiscal cliff for middle-class families and small businesses. we can solve the greatest econo
that we do need long term -- deficit reduction -- that is important to america's credibility. it is important for america's economy and economic growth. that plan has to be balanced, and that means significant revenues and that paying has to go around. that means the wealthy and well- off have to pay their fair share as well. these should not be new issues. they are ones that were debated. they came up in every debate -- even the foreign policy debate. the american people are on the side of the president and democrats who are making this case. that is not to say that there should not be spending as part as this debate. there has been over $1 trillion in spending cuts. that is a part of this debate that gets lost. just because washington has a short memory does not mean we should all have one and that there has already been sacrifice on behalf of the american people through those domestic discretionary cuts. we are excited. c.a.p. has been a lot of work on the fiscal cliff. we have talked about medicare savings that can improve and strengthen the program and address rising nat
back to work, a deal with our deficit, and we will not have economic security for the future. in order to create jobs and fiske our economy, we have to invest in energy production and domestic manufacturing capacity. they are the engines of economic growth for us in the future. we have to go back to being the country that builds things, rather than the one that just consumes goods that have been produced overseas. with that in mind, i have championed the legislation to create a national infrastructure bank. according to a recent report, failing to invest in our nation 's infrastructure could cost the united states $129 billion a year and over the next 10 years. it reads, u.s. businesses added $430 billion in transportation costs. u.s. exports will fall. meanwhile, we are falling behind in the global economy. china invests 9% of their gross domestic product in infrastructure. india, 5% and rising. in america, we spend less than 2% of gdp on infrastructure. it is a concept with broad and bipartisan support. it could help close the gaps. do something about bringing tele-communications acr
tonight in deficit reduction efforts. it's a path that is sure to lead to many obstacles from the other side. chief white house correspondent ed henry has the new developments in a time sensitive story. >> in a dramatic move today, president obama seemed to be trying to split the budget talks to two pieces. suggesting he and lawmakers come up with spending cuts next year after they avoid the fiscal cliff, by extending middle class tax cuts and raising taxes on the rich. >> it would give us more time than next year to work together. on a comprehensive plan to bring down the deficit, streamline our tax system. do in a balanced way. >> the president apparent shift away from spending and tax altogether now in a big deal could increase the chances of a market rattling fall off the cliff. since the republicans want spending cuts included. >> republicans are willing to put revenue on the table. but it's time for the president and democrats to get serious about the spending problem that our country has. >> the president's move came one day after two other big developments, suggesting democrats
of that up, you are still going to be left with a huge hole called the deficit and it will have to mean cutting the federal budget. >> so, even if we increase the tax rates, as you noted, by the way, the top 1% in this country makes 17% of the income, and pay 37% of the taxes. i mean, so, the fair share argument really isn't -- >> up against a hard out here, and i'm going to ask you to give us your last thought here. >> mr. president, please, please, work with the business community. we want you to succeed. but, you are putting impediments in our way that make it impossible. we want you to succeed, we want to succeed. work with us. please work with us. >> andy puzder, thanks for being with us. european nations on the wrong side of the fiscal cliff but the president says america can steer clear. >> president barack obama: i believe it is solvable and my budget, frankly does it and i don't the republicans to adopt my budget, i recognize we have to compromise. compromise is hard. >> lou: more than a trillion-and-a-half dollars in tax hikes, no spending cuts. what is the deal? that is tonig
, don't worry as much about the deficit, the revenues will come in, and we have to get rid of the social safety net the way it's been, and cut spending, slash spending dramatically. it was very divided policywise and barack obama won pretty handily. >> a week after the election john boehner, speaker boehner, does a press statement and he says we're not going to raise revenues. we should look at loopholes and deductions. >> one thing that hasn't changed and you can put on as many senate republicans as you want looking reasonable. what hasn't changed is the tea party caucus in the house. they've lost a few members, but they're still a majority and john boehner has to find some way to get something past them. that's why i doubt there will be a christmastime deal. i think the president is going to have to let these tax cuts end and then boehner may have a chance of convincing them to pass tax cuts for the bottom 98% without the top 2%. >> do you agree with that, dr. peterson? that the president will be forced to allow these to run their course simply so that republicans in the house won't ha
? >> well, first of all, i do believe the middle class has a stake and a good, solid balanced, deficit reduction plan. the plan should be what the president campaigned on, namely balance. that means we've got to have a substantial contribution from revenues. the revenues have to come from the folks who have been making good money during the recession. that's folks over $250,000 or some number close to. that the pentagon's got to make a contribution and if there is anything on healthcare, it's gotta be about reforming it, bringing the costs down, not cutting benefits. >> eliot: let's drill down a couple of pieces of this. what do you think the underlying ratio should be between cost cutting and revenue generation. last summer it was 10 to 1 in terms of cutting costs to revenue. thankfully the deal didn't get done. should it be one-to-one? where would you like to see this happen? >> you know, i actually don't know that number because i think the question is i think we need about a trillion and a half from revenues and the
there will also be a drag on the american economy if our budget deficit widens out forever, if we're irresponsible and governor doesn't work. left with those four choices, think think -- on the flip side, did republicans ask you to spend any nuts -- i think at this point both sides have acknowledged that there's going to be revenue concessions and entertainment concessions. in fact, if you listen to, it again, i'm not a master of the political art here, i'm in washington but i would say if you had these points of views in a business context, as close as they are, i would say a deal would be in reach. >> you see some fundamental level of optimism from lloyd blankfine but a long way to go with the combination of prief pressure and public pressure, like the president is going to exert before we actually go to the flight of fired. i asked the treasury secretary should the president return to wall street. he it must be someone who understands markets, marry. >> me have 33 days to -- head of all pi he told john harwood. marge i will hates have to go up somewhat. he said that's going to put a drag on the
will be speaking about the so-called fiscal cliff and that is a reduction -- and deficit reduction. we will have that live here on c-span at 11:30 a.m. eastern. over at the white house today, president obama is meeting with small business owners. at 12:30, jay carney will hold a press briefing and take questions from reporters. this afternoon, the president and vice president will meet with the mexican president who takes office december 1. the press briefing today at 12:30. on capitol hill, the house of representatives returns today at 2:00 p.m. eastern on their agenda this afternoon five bills including a measure requiring the department of a homeland security to report on security. later this week, a student visa program. also this week, the democratic leadership elections. that will be coming up later this week. live coverage of the house at 2:00 p.m. eastern. a number of senators have been meeting with u.n. ambassador susan rice in the wake of her comments following the attack on the benghazi consulate. just wrapping up is a brief news conference and statement with senators. here is a look.
when people first signed that pledge, the federal budget deficit was $220 billion. this year, $1.1 trillion, how can you say nothing has changed? >> lots have changed. bush focused not on spending. the pledge only does certain things. the pledge makes tax increases more difficult at the state level, at the national level. you haven't had a republican vote for income tax since 1990 when bush threw away his presidency. 1993 tax increase, only on democratic votes. then no tax increases until 2009 when obama came in and raised taxes with obamacare. >> isn't this -- you are having republican is take a difficult pledge to cut taxes, isn't that like a quarterback saying they like taxes? >> it's a pledge not to increase taxes. people say why don't you toughen it. you don't want to change it because it is a simple guardrail. it doesn't solve the world's problems, it says no net tax increase. >> in your mind when someone signs it, how long are they committed to it? >> in writing when the person signs it as long as you are a congressman or senator. >> you are signing this for life? >> unles
's translate that. according to the congressional budget office, falling off the cliff would cut the deficit but stop economic recovery in its tracks. now presidents in both parties usually try to put money in people's pocketses to stimulate the economy. president bush sent taxpayers a refund check while obama has cut payroll taxes. p falling off the cliff is a reversal of that approach. that's why the cbo estimates economic growth would drop under 1% to just .5%. and unemployment could jump over a point to 9.1%. heather, we know the costs, we understand this game because the republicans have been playing it for a while. do you think anything has shifted post-election in way that will actually get a deal done? >> i think what's really come to roost for conservatives has been the fact they were pushing a vision for our economy that included basically just this, except for the tax increases, right. they said starting in 2010, the deficit is the most important thing, it's the most important thing, and now, they're basically faced with immediate deficit reduction and realize, oh, this is actuall
reduce the deficit. it doesn't make a lot of sense to get rid of a deficit reduction program, as part of a deficit reduction deal. the white house already rejected boehner's idea. obama care will not be part of debt negotiations. boehner is up to something here, don't you think? something else, that is. if you watch john boehner closely over the last two weeks, you can see him laying the ground work for the latest ploy. he call eed obama care the law the land, but also tried to link it to obama care and the budget. >> you had said, next year, that you would repeal the health care vote. that's still your mission? >> well, i think the election changes that. it's pretty clear that the president was re-elected. obama care is the law of the land. i think there are parts of the health care law that are going to be very difficult to implement. and very expensive. and at a time where we're trying to find a way to create a toward a balanced budget, everything has to be on the table. >> but you won't be spending the time next year, trying to repeal obama care? >> there are certainly may be part
competitor again? >> so much of the federal deficit does come from ticket demographic problem, which is that many baby boomers are going to be retiring -- the fact -- come from a demographic problem, which is that many baby boomers be retiring. >> we are maintaining the position of no cuts, because there's not any conversation happening in this capital area yet about revenue. as a health care union, we know that there can be improvements in the delivery of medicare. the demographic problem in this country in our minds has to be solved by creating good jobs and getting the economy growing from people spending again because i have enough money in their pockets to generate the kind of revenue that will allow for the medicare system to be solvent through the next generation. >> would you go along with passed medicare cuts of president obama has proposed in past budgets, and seek to cut the rate of growth? >> our current position is that there is no reason to entertain any question like that, because there is no indication that we're going to break on revenue. it is important to maintain
over the next ten years. that's about 40% of the $4 trillion deficit goal that we have. that's the same thing that simpson-bowles had, 40% revenue. so the only way you can reach that, incidentally, is to allow the rates to go up. just this idea of we're going to take a look at the tax code, change some credits and deductions, you can't come up with enough money. >> so any deal will have to include at least some hike in the tax rate. >> i don't think there's any other way to approach it. that's why the president has taken this position. if we're going to make sure, for example, that we spare families making $250,000 a year or less from any income tax increase, then this idea that we're going to go into the tax code and find $1.6 trillion over ten years becomes almost impossible. we need to protect those middle income families. >> you said today that congress should deal with the fiscal cliff crisis now, but tackle entitlements, the entitlement questions, later. yesterday, senator lamar alexander said the only thing the president has to do to get an agreement from republicans now is in hi
negotiated deficit reduction changes. it includes expiration of the bush era tax cuts that would effect everyone. expiration of the tax cut around for years can be called a tax increase. the nonpartisan budget office would bring in $1 trillion in ten years. on tap, 1.2 trillion in spending cuts for ten years. $100 billion in first year. half to defense programs. half to nondefense. cbo says going off the cliff would lead to a recession next year. we have fox team coverage tonight. ed henry is trying to read tea leaves on a day of mixed signals from all sides but we begin with mike emanuel on the possibility that g.o.p. lawmakers may put their oath of office above a promise to antitax increase organizer. good evening. >> good evening. the republican sources say they are offering a balanced approach of significant spending cuts and some revenue without boosting tax rates. >> we have been responsible as we remain firm on this point. no tax increases now for promised spending cuts that won't materialize later. the american people have seen that game before. they won't be fooled again. >> th
rate will necessarily go up. we talk about debt and deficit in this chamber, if we remember less than 12 years ago, 12 years ago we hit a budgetary surplus of $258 billion. meaning that we were taking in $258 billion more in each year than we were spending. how was that possible? it was made possible by having created 22 million private sector jobs in the previous eight years. . what was the policy then? the policy was to invest in the american economy, in the american people, in education, in scientific research, and infrastructure. so i think the lessons from our most recent past are very instructive today as to what we should be doing in washington to promote growth. the gentleman from california spoke of a plan i was working on, that's a $1.2 trillion investment in rebuilding the roads and bridges of america. that plan, advanced by the new america foundation, would create 27 million private sector jobs in five years. the first year alone, over five million jobs which would reduce the current employment rate from where it is today to 6.4% and in the second year, 5.2%. now public in
cut the budget, if we cut the deficit and raise taxes, i don't think that's the worst thing in the world. as warren buffett has been saying for the last 24 hours, are you really going to turn down a good investment opportunity just because the tax rates are a little higher in we're talking about a minor 4 percentage point increase in the upper end of the tax rate here. it's not life or death. you know, cutting the deficit and raising taxes, if they can't agree, which congress has shown themselves inability to agree. if they're not going to agree, maybe it's not the worst thing in the world for tax rates to go up and for the deficit to be cut. i think that could result in a big economic boom. >> wow. >> and then, let's say two weeks after we go over the cliff, after the 1st of january, they then cut attacks for everybody -- >> but here's the problem with that notion. it's not fine. but, john, it's not fine because a lot of ordinary middle class people -- >> that's the problem. >> -- are trying to spend money at christmas and they're deeply anxious about what's going to happen
, michelle, why is this such a crisis? we're going to have about $.5 trillion in deficits in 2013. is that a crisis? for god's sake, we're finally doing something to address our debt and deficits. that should be great news. i'll tell you why gold might be down today. why is the market rallying when gold, oil, and copper are down? the only tentity borrowing all this money is the government. that's why gold is going down. guess what? don't worry about it. they're going to punt on this like they have every other time. >> are you as pessimistic? are they going to punt? what do you do? >> in the short-term, you have to be careful. these are unknowable things. it's a very fluid situation, as you identified. somebody gives us some happy talk. this market goes straight up. i think gold is giving perhaps a false signal there won't be qe-4. i believe there will be. it's just a matter of time. this is going to take time to implement. we're not going to put all these changes in place january 1. there's no grand bargain out there that's going to cover all these things at once. it's going to be
, the u.s. situation with respect to our deficit and debt is a national security liability. we need our senior leadership to take it on. we have an opportunity to do so, a requirement to do so. the foundation of national power is ultimately economic. in terms of global influence, in terms of the ability to support a military, the economic is foundational. i think in the u.s. we have both an opportunity and requirement to get our house in order. i believe what hundreds of tatars and 435 members of the house will step up -- what 100 senators and 435 members of the house will step up. >> so we have america under control because of the amount of treasuries? >> [indiscernible] our position to the nine states is very, very decisive to strengthen our relationship. there is no intention for us to use this economic relationship and a different context. we are very satisfied. that's all. >> let me open up to the floor. with four microphones around the room. fast.going to go i will call on people whose names i don't know. but that is josh rogan from "the cable." >> thank you for your time today. i
that medicare and medicaid are the main drivers of our deficit. and i know we have seen this morning also several editorial writers indicate the same, that it is important that we put these drivers of the deficit on the table and include them as part of any agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. as the speaker said, we have done our part. we have put revenues on the table, something that we didn't do two years ago during the debt ceiling negotiation. we still believe that it is most important for us to address the economic situation in this country where so many people are out of work. and that's why we take the position and believe strongly that increasing marginal rates is income tax rates is not the way to produce growth and to put people back to work. but we have not seen any good faith effort on the part of this administration to talk about the real problem that we're trying to fix. i'm told that mr. bowles, as some of us will meet with him later today, had said earlier this morning that it's been no serious discussion by the white house on entitlements, on medicare and medicaid. this
approach to reducing the nation's deficit. let's bring in our panel. mary katharine ham editor-at-large of hot air.com and fox news contributor. peter mirijanian former advisor to the clinton-gore and gore-lieberman campaigns. when the president arrives at the white house to speak, he will have people behind him, ordinary americans who reached out to the white house and want their $2,000 middle class tax cut preserved. republicans are saying this is essentially a campaign stunt, a campaign appearance kind of event of the he won the election. he should get on the business of governing. what do you say? >> well, one quick observation, jon. i think what you're seeing, what i think is interesting the first social media presidency. this administration using technology and using social media to advance their agenda. but look, all presidents do this. george w. bush after his re-election famously said he has now the political capital he intend to use. so going to the public and going sort of over the head of congress is something democratic and republican presidents always do what they
box and reduce the deficit, they spent it. he has no savings in his budget. he wants to count savings because he is not in iraq anymore. they threw him out. that is why he is not in iraq anymore. connell: we will obviously come back to this over and over again. grover norquist, thank you. dagen: we will stay on the topic of warren buffett and taxes. should the cut off the $500,000 not $250,000 as the president wants. would that ease some of the burden and pain of higher taxes? >> on one level it would, of course. raising that threshold from $250,000 to $500,000. the buffet idea maybe release a little bit of pain, but does nothing to address the extortions that he is talking about. huge distortions. 160,000 pages of distortions in the tax code. you were talking about a tiny, tiny improvement. i will take it, sure. we are getting distracted on this one. dagen: connell was talking about a minimum tax on the wealthy. he starts out $1 billion a year. 30%. a good idea in the abstract? then he starts talking about his brother in. those are multi billionaires, dude. >> i mean, i think these a
will not increase the federal deficit. they said it will reduce it slightly. ten years slightly and 20 years significantly. it's complete bs to say that this has any deficit implications. it doesn't. this is just a smoke screen. it's a red herring. it's another excuse for not doing what needs to be done. the american people have spoken. the central issue in the campaign was not only tax fairness but raising taxes on the top 2% as a means to help us balance -- get rid of the deficit and eat into the debt. and the american people have said, yes, that's one of the components of the deal. so this is just another smoke screen. it's a delaying tactic. i truly believe that if they keep this up they will pay for it and they will pay for it big time, certainly in the election of 2014. but the sad part is, the nation and people can't wait. we've got to resolve this debt because if we do so, rev, will cause the economy to explode. we will see a resurge in investment, good things happening for the economy. >> congressman ellison, with all of that at stake and clear from every expert that we've heard, it
students have contributed $4.50 billion out of their pockets toward deficit reduction. we have had things squeezing us at different levels. we are facing the biggest threat from what is called a sequester, the fiscal cliff. one part of the fiscal cliff arc across the board -- across the board -- are across-the-board spending cuts. they will be cutting housing and food safety and the entire range of domestic programs. for education, that will be head start, which is in the department of health and human services. there will be a $4.80 billion cut, the largest education cut in the history of the country. that will move us that courts whether the goal is -- move us backwards. our biggest challenge in the short-term is to work together with groups like the urban league and the national council of la raza to come up with a balanced approach to deficit reduction and ask people who can pay a little bit more to do so without balancing the budget on the backs of children and students and working people and low income people. a couple of quick things i want to say. we are also facing increasing enr
to fix this borrowing debt deficit issue in the book, vice president biden's chief of staff, talking about the economic crisis in 2011, that's exactly what is going on. there is so much evidence that it is the biggest future. we are on the path becoming europe and greece. you just can't keep borrowing money. there is a stunning and fiction in this country, and we need some sort of we need some serious intervention. in the book, what i attempt to do is take people to the presidents and leaders and tell you exactly because of the luxury of time and my publisher, simon & schuster, i declined to get the meeting notes to get the exact detail to interview president obama and speaker boehner and the key players in this. i just want to take one quick snapshot from what happened that we didn't know about, which is critical. when the cops pull up less when the president was upset, he called the congressional leaders on a saturday morning at 11:00 o'clock a.m. the democratic and republican leaders were trying to work out their own deal. harry reid, the democratic leader, said to the president,
're saying is we don't want to cut the deficit too fast. now when it comes to the fiscal deficit -- >> i want to transition you to the other hot topic that we've been following. it's senator john mccain and his stance or lack thereof now against ambassador susan rice. let me play what he said earlier. i believe it was november 14th and his new line of words, i guess, regarding her possible nomination for secretary of state. let me play it back to back. >> we will do whatever's necessary to block the nomination that's within our power as far as susan rice is concerned. >> she could conceivably get your voros for secretary of state? >> i think she deserves the ability and opportunity to explain herself and her position. >> lois, what's the scoop there there and what's behind this change? >> i think that john mccain is a very, very smart politician, and, you know, a smart politician doesn't want to box in the opponent like he tried to do with president clinton so that president clinton runs out and nominates her. i think everybody needed to kind of cool off a little bit and if he backs off, the
to the voters that mitt romney did not. obviously, mitt romney had a huge deficit with african-american voters, hispanic voters and women voters, so i think these potential candidates are trying to map it out. >> david corn, when george w. bush ran, he got such a quick surge in the polls that no one was able to stop him. is jeb bush that guy this time? is he the one that if he makes it clear he's running, others will decide not to? >> you know, i still wonder if two words come to mind. too soon. i mean, the george w. bush presidency is still not held in high esteem amongst many voters who still blame bush for the economic downturn at the end of his administration that has carried us to this day. jeb bush has the ability to talk to hispanic, more moderate, but i also wonder if you know, people will be a little tired of the bush dynasty come to 2016. >> well, they're too tired of it now, but 2016 is a few years away. thank you both for joining me tonight. >>> coming up, good news for democrats trying to keep control of the senate in 2014 and one republican whose strategy for dealing with latino
, we have a trillion dollar annual deficit and this would not close that gap at all. so the president needs to come up with a plan and for better or worse going to require leadership. no member of the senate or the house is going to be able to do this, this is something the president has to do by himself and he can't do it on the campaign trail. >> let me ask you this because you wrote an op-ed today and you wrote about divided government about the deal. you said divided government means that neither democrats nor republicans will be able to pass legislation along strictly partisan lines. we cannot tax our way back to budget surpluses and economic prosperity without major spending cuts and entitle 347b9 reforms we will continue running a huge deficit regardless of what anyone does on either side. for every dollar of revenue you give him, he'll give you $2.50 of spending cuts. if he gave you that on spending cuts, it would be 8$850 billon year would you do that? >> the president has said a lot of things, but what counts is what he's willing to put on the table and so far, he hasn't put
the type of serious deficit reform needed to bring down the $16 trillion debt? >> well, you know, i think anytime you're talking about a deficit, there's two ways to bring it down, and i know you know this well. you're either going to raise revenue or have cuts, and i would continue to argue for a balanced approach which means i do think you can find savings in both programs. but what i'm concerned about is what the real agenda is and the real agenda, in my opinion, is to end medicare. i mean, that was certainly a big item in the presidential debate is changing medicare into a voucher program. so what i don't believe in is changing the fundamental structure where we break the guarantee to seniors that we've had in our country for decades. that i disagree with. finding savings, there are certainly ways to do that in both programs, but neither one is going to balance or is going to address the deficit without clearly raising revenue. >> an interesting thing has developed among some of your fellow members in the house, democratic caucus, peter welch of vermont, if a deal is bad, that if it's
the bars below zero represent years when the deficit grew. these bars above zero represent years when the deficit shrunk. we're here right now in the deficit shrunk portion of the chart. the point of the shrinking on the whole chart back to 1950. when somebody stops inevitably matering about the fiscal cliff and the sky rocketing deficit, they don't know what they're talking about and they probably don't know it is wrong but you can help with visual aids. we have posted both of those charts we just showed you on our blog and you can load them on your smartphone or ipad to pass around the table and print them out on paper in case your uncle doesn't look liking at these new things. those are waiting for you now. we are here for you. you can do this. report back and let us know how it went. that does it for us tonight. have a great thanksgiving. we'll see you monday. now it is time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell guest hosted by the spectacular ezra kline. good evening. >> good evening, rachel. i am glad to know other people bring charts to thanksgiving dinner. >> we're pr
. >> how do we move our country forward and reduce the deficit? by creating jobs and growing our economy, not by cutting programs that families rely on most. for working families it's all about putting americans back to work. not cutting the things we rely on most. >> there are signals they can't accept the kind of entitlement reforms in medicare and social security that senator graham is saying are prerequisite to a deal. >> let me tell you, first, george, and you know this, social security does not add one penny to our debt. not a penny. it's a separate funded operation. and we can do things and i believe we should now, smaller things, played out over the long term that gives its solvency. medicare is another story. only 12 years of solvency lie ahead if we do nothing. those who say don't touch it, don't change it are ignoring the obvious. we want medicare to be there for today's seniors and tomorrow, as well. we don't want to go to the poll and voucherizing it and we can make meaningful reforms without compromising the integrity of the program, making sure that the beneficiaries are n
which means lowering tax rates not necessarily deficit reduction. it is the same policy romney had. it is where they were before the election. they gotta wake up and see the election, change things and they actually have to meet democrats somewhere in the middle. >> bill: i would hope. i would hope. new york times this morning, front page of the business section in terms of closing loopholes, romney was never specific about which one. new york times is saying that they know -- now we know one of the ones they're targeting. the headline is a tax break once sacred is now seen as vulnerable. what they're talking about is the mortgage interest deduction. there was no doubt it is on the table. it is one they're targeting rather than raise tax rates on the wealthy, they're going to either limit or get rid of the mortgage interest deduction. which is the most popular one. >> the most popular one. politically difficult i think. that's really the problem with romney's entire approach that said we'll just create revenue
as republicans have been trying to do since 2005 when we passed the deficit reduction act. >> let me jump to that, because part of the intriguing thing here is the fact that congressman cole, he is doing something that the president said, that post election news conference and that is, you know, extend the tax cut for everyone, but the wealthy, and then, you know, after you get that done, and i don't know if you would be going along with that, but nevertheless, you know, go ahead, talk about this long-term deal that would involve possible cuts as i think you're getting at, you know, cuts to programs like medicare. is that something we could see taking shape here? >> you're talking about getting rid of redundancies. great example, 342 economic development programs that are in the federal government system. let's start cleaning up these redundancies. let's do some of these across the board cuts in discretionary spending. let's make certain that medicare and social security, which are trust funds, not entitlements, they're trust funds, that they meet their obligation to our seniors and near seniors.
deficit right now. it is the bridge to renewable energy, renewable energy will take a long time. if we can move to gas we get tremendous benefits in terms of cleaner energy on the way to renewable energy future. if we could get those things done, steve, this would be transformational for our economy but we have not been able to act on these things even though i said earlier there is wide bipartisan -- >> thank you. let me just try to poke holes in this. if we rollback time to just before the financial crisis you look at the u.s. deposition. douglas holtz-eakin was out there talking about that already. and john mccain and others have been but it is much worse today but if you look at the deck in a different way, look at private sector debt, the fact, forget government debt. before the financial crisis private-sector debt was 160% of gdp in the united states and despite averaging, back to 160% of gdp we are still in crisis mode, you had structural corruption between regulators and financial institutions and any place in the economy and a private sector event that led to a government response
actually make the deficit picture look a lot worse over the next ten years. that's obviously, you know, that cuts against this narrative. on the other nd, there are a lot of things about the obama care law that are going to be fiscal problems. for example, the law treats people who are on the exchanges really differently from it treats people who get insurance through the employers. so there are aot of those things that probably should be fixed but aren't going to yield big savings in the short term. as a matter of deficit negotiations, i think boehner is not on strong footing. >> interesting. there are a lot of problems with obama care. i think obama would be the first person to acknowledge that. he didn't get a lot of things he wanted in there. but david frum, what is john boehner doing? what is he possibly trying to gain from this? >> okay, i'm going with your crazy luke a fox option. >> good. >> john baner is about to have to bring the more conservative part of his caucus, some very bad news. republicans don't have a wlost leverage. tax cuts expire whether without anybody doing any
. >> reporter: but raising taxes is only one-half of a deficit deal. republicans want democrats to raise the eligibility age for medicare. >> i want entitlement reforms. republicans put revenue on the table, democrats always promise to cut spending. i'm looking for more revenue for entitlement reform before the end of the year. >> reporter: so far democrats sound lex flexible. >> we've got to make sure there is seamless coverage of afordable health coverage for every american. my concern about raising the retirement age gaps in coverage or coverage that's way too expensive for seniors to purchase. >> reporter: there are many potential cliffs but higher taxes for structural changes for medicaid and medicare may be abong the biggest. bob corker argued for both warning everyone against punting this until next year or accepting phony savings that don't solve or at least address the underlying deficit and structural debt problems. charlie and norah? >> let me add my voice, congratulations you on this day enharnting one of the big jobs in journalism. they're big shoes
to reduce the long-term deficit, that requires a combination of cuts. it also means asking high income individuals to pay a little bit more. that was a key issue in the campaign. all the exit polls show the american people are on the president's side. the only people who appear to be totally deaf to that are some of the congressional leaders in the republican house and senate. so i think it's important that the president get out and talk to the american people. this is part of the national conversation. this is a very important moment, and so it's important even as the president talks to congressional leaders and he had them down to the white house and continues to be in contact with them, he should engage the american public in this very important national conversation. >> let me ask you, you have a couple of senate republicans who have come out again grover norquist and any kind of notion of a pledge or being held to a lobbyist as opposed to the american people. on the left you have some progressives who are concerned that too many concessions will be made with social security, medic
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 108 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)